From: "Martin J. Bligh" <fletch@aracnet.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: kernbench-16 on 2.5.59 vs 2.5.59-mm6
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 09:36:52 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <375110000.1043689012@titus> (raw)
This test does a make -j X vmlinux on a 2.4.17 kernel compile with
a very large config set. X is 16 times the number of cpus. This is
on a 16-way NUMA-Q so we end up with a make -j256 (it's fastest
with about 1.5 * num_cpus), but this test puts more stress on the
kernel.
None of the other tests I ran showed anything very interesting.
(the new NUMA sched stuff from Ingo seems to give mild degredations
in -mjb ... probably needs some more tuning).
Going from 59 to 59-mm6, I get:
Kernbench-16:
Elapsed User System CPU
2.5.59 47.45 568.02 143.17 1498.17
2.5.59-mm6 47.18 567.15 138.62 1495.50
Summary: Scheduler stuff seems like a wash (schedule -> do_schedule).
Seems to be some sort of rearrangement of the dcache stuff which
appears to be mildly beneficial (what's going in there?).
current_kernel_time seems to be less than half the cost, I'm assuming
the new frlock kernel time stuff is doing that. This workload doesn't
stress that very much, so I'll find a better test for that one ...
2.5.59: 1657 current_kernel_time
2.5.59-mm6: 747 current_kernel_time
diffprofile (+ gets worse, - gets better).
2023 do_schedule
485 dentry_open
289 .text.lock.file_table
132 clear_page_tables
131 pgd_ctor
113 vma_merge
75 kmap_atomic
62 get_empty_filp
51 can_vma_merge_after
-52 dget_locked
-54 vfs_follow_link
-55 kmem_cache_free
-66 buffered_rmqueue
-74 __copy_to_user_ll
-94 page_add_rmap
-102 fd_install
-110 __copy_from_user_ll
-117 __d_lookup
-157 do_generic_mapping_read
-188 path_lookup
-273 .text.lock.dec_and_lock
-275 file_ra_state_init
-283 do_anonymous_page
-331 pfn_to_nid
-405 page_remove_rmap
-413 pgd_alloc
-427 vm_enough_memory
-910 current_kernel_time
-1222 .text.lock.namei
-2076 total
-2133 schedule
next reply other threads:[~2003-01-27 17:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-01-27 17:36 Martin J. Bligh [this message]
2003-01-28 0:22 ` kernbench-16 on 2.5.59 vs 2.5.59-mm6 William Lee Irwin III
[not found] <20030127174015$5cfa@gated-at.bofh.it>
2003-01-27 18:48 ` Dipankar Sarma
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=375110000.1043689012@titus \
--to=fletch@aracnet.com \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox